On the evening of July 30, the U.S. House of Representatives debated and
defeated Congressman Ron Paul's ballot access and presidential debates
amendments. They had been offered as amendments to the Shays-Meehan Campaign
Finance bills. The debates bill was defeated by a vote of 88-337 and the ballot
access bill was defeated by a vote of 62-363. The roll-call vote for each
amendment is below (debates or ballots). A sad note is
that Congressman John Conyers, who introduced the ballot access bill three times
in the past, voted against it.

Ballot Access

The ballot access bill would have set a ceiling on the number of signatures
that states can require, as a condition for minor party and independent
candidate access to the general election ballot. The ceilings would be one-tenth
of 1% of the last vote cast for statewide office, and one-half of 1% for
district office. Only federal office would be affected.

Congressman Paul made four points in support of the amendment: (1) that the
bill is Constitutional, under explicit language in Article I; (2) that ballot
access in some states is too restrictive; (3) that the nation faces a problem of
declining voter turnout, and that a broader range of choices would help
alleviate the problem; and (4) that easier ballot access would reduce the need
to spend so much money in federal campaigns.

To bolster point number (2), Paul cited the example of Georgia, where the
existing law for minor party and independent candidate ballot access for U.S.
House of Representatives is so strict, that ever since it was passed in 1943, no
minor party candidate for that office has qualified. He also pointed out the
discrepancy that minor party presidential candidates need 28 times as many
signatures as major party presidential candidates (700,000 signatures versus
25,000).

To bolster point number (3), he referred to public opinion polls which show
that 42% of U.S. voters self-identify as neither Democratic nor Republican. He
also argued that voter apathy would be ameliorated if there were a greater range
of choices for voters.

In rebuttal, Congressman Marty Meehan (D-Mass.) raised the old bugaboo of
"states rights", arguing that the federal government should not dictate to the
states what the ballot access laws should be. It was an odd comment in this
context, since the federal government already preempts the entire field of
campaign finance regulations for federal candidates. Under existing federal law,
states cannot regulate campaign finance for federal candidates.

Congressman Sherwood Boehlert (R-N.Y.) also spoke in rebuttal to the ballot
access bill, but only to make the point that chances for the original
Shays-Meehan campaign finance bill are enhanced if it doesn't get amended to
include other aspects of election law. Both Meehan and Boehlert acknowledged
that ballot access is an important issue that Congress should examine in the
future.

Debates Bill

Congressman Paul next asked for support of his amendment on presidential
debates. It would mandate that presidential candidates who receive general
election public financing must agree to debate any opponent who is on the ballot
in at least 40 states. If the bill had been in effect in 1996, there would have
been 5-person debates between President Bill Clinton, Bob Dole,
Ross Perot, Harry Browne(all four were on all 50
state ballots and D.C. and were on more than 40 ballots prior to the
debates) and John Hagelin(who was on 43 state
ballots and D.C. and was on more than 40 ballots in time for at least one of the
debates). Howard Phillips did not attain 40-state ballot status in 1996 (he was
on 39 states only), and no other candidates were even close.Additional information in this Web edition of B.A.N., in
smaller type above, was added by Bob Bickford. More information about 1996 Presidential Ballot
Access is available.

Paul pointed out that viewership for the actual 1996 presidential debates
(which included only Clinton and Dole) was the lowest for any general election
presidential debate in history.

Only 24% of the public watched. By contrast, in 1992, when Ross Perot was
included, the debates were watched by 42%. Paul emphasized again that lower
voter turnout is a concern, and argued that more inclusive debates would boost
turnout.

In rebuttal, Congressman Meehan said that the Commission on Presidential
Debates, an "independent" body, does a better job of deciding who should be in
presidential debates. Of course, the Commission on Presidential Debates is in no
sense "independent"; it is headed by past National Chairmen of the Republican
and Democratic Parties. Meehan said Congress should not "dictate" who should be
in the debates, but of course it would be activists and voters themselves who
would determine who should be in the debates, if the amendment were to become
law. Meehan did say "I agree the debates should be more open".

Congressman Michael Castle (R-Del) also spoke against the debates amendment.
He said "I have a lot of sympathy for the amendment", but then said "I support
the Commission on Presidential Debates".

Congressman Sam Farr (D-Cal.) also spoke against the debates amendment, but
solely to say that the amendment didn't belong in a campaign finance bill. He
pointed out that the main body of the campaign finance bill deals mainly with
congressional elections, whereas the debates amendment deals with presidential
elections.

More Republicans than Democrats voted for each of the amendments. The ballot
access bill received "yes" votes from 45 Republicans, 16 Democrats, and from
Bernie Sanders, the independent. The debates bill received "yes" votes from 67
Republicans, 20 Democrats, and Sanders. 9 members abstained on the ballot access
bill; 9 abstained on the debates bill.

Rep. Velma Veloria (D-Seattle) has agreed to introduce a bill next year to
ease the Washington state primary vote test for minor party and independent
candidates for statewide office, from 1%, to one-half of 1%. The existing law
requires minor party and independent candidates to poll 1% in the blanket
primary, and has existed since 1977. No minor party candidate for Governor or
U.S. Senator has ever been able to obtain 1% of the vote in the primary.

On July 17, U.S. District Court Judge Wayne Alley, a Reagan appointee, ruled
that Oklahoma must let voters register as Libertarians, and that elections
officials must keep track of such voters. Thus, the party will be able to learn
who the registered Libertarians are, and what their address is, so as to be able
to invite them to party meetings, and to ask them to become dues-paying members.
Atherton v Ward, no. 96-1926a. The state has not said yet whether
it will appeal.

The ruling is confined to any party which has ever petitioned for a place on
the ballot, but which is not now qualified. The Libertarian Party is the only
such party in that category. Oklahoma requires a vote of 10% for Governor or
President for a party to remain on the ballot. Currently, the Reform, Democratic
and Republican Parties are qualified. If the Reform Party fails to get 10% for
Governor this November, it will also benefit from the ruling.

The Oklahoma petition requirement for new parties is 5% of the last vote
cast. This is the most difficult petition requirement in the nation for new
parties, with the exception of Florida, which requires 3% of the number of
registered voters.

This is only the second time that a court has ruled that states must let
voters register as member of unqualified parties. The first was in Colorado in
1984. Courts ruled against unqualified parties on this issue in Iowa in 1990 and
in North Carolina in 1995.

Generally, when a political party files a lawsuit alleging that a state is
over-regulating political parties, and that this over-regulation violates the
First Amendment, the political party in question is unified. In such
circumstances, the party has a good chance of winning the lawsuit, since U.S.
Supreme Court precedents on political party rights are protective of political
parties.

In this case, however, there are two factions of the Arizona Libertarian
Party. One faction, generally based in Tucson, ran 75 candidates for Precinct
Committeemen in the party's primary, all of whom were elected. Under state law,
these committeemen are officers of the party. The other faction of the state
party, which is recognized by the Libertarian national office and which is
dominant in Phoenix, elects its officers in meetings, a method which the state
does not recognize.

In this situation, since the party itself is not united, it is difficult for
it to win a case against state regulation of the party. The next phase of the
lawsuit will now require a trial to determine who the party's state officers
are. The constitutional ruling may be appealed in the future, but not until the
entire case has gone through Superior Court.

Last month, the Democratic Party of the District of Columbia filed a lawsuit
against the District's system of limited voting for city council-at-large. Every
two years, the voters of D.C. elect two city councilors-at-large (plus district
members). For the two at-large seats, no party is permitted to run more than one
candidate. The Democratic Party argues that it has a First Amendment right to
run for both seats. D.C. Democratic State Committee v Board of
Elections, 98-cv-1779.

On July 9, U.S. District Court Judge Harold Baer, a Clinton appointee, ruled
that a trial will be held in Gelb v Board of Elections, 97-cv-9404,
s.d. This is the lawsuit over write-in space on primary ballots on New York city
voting machines. Gelb lost on this issue in 1997, since in that earlier case,
there was evidence that the city had failed to provide write-in space in just
one election, the 1993 election, and the 2nd circuit felt that an inadvertent
error did not rise to the level of a constitutional violation. In the new
lawsuit, Gelb will show that the city followed the same policy in 1994, 1995,
1996 and 1997 as well.

In his order, Judge Baer wrote, "The right to vote and to vote for whom one
pleases is a central tenant of a constitutional democracy." This is the most
supportive language for write-in voting to be written by any judge since 1992,
when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Hawaii did not violate the Constitution
by banning write-in votes.

On July 7, the 11th circuit issued an opinion in Socialist Workers
Party v Leahy, 97-4295, over whether Florida can require minor parties to
submit a $10,000 bond as a condition of having party labels on the ballot next
to the names of their candidates (the bond is in addition to severe petition
requirements and candidate fees).

In 1996, U.S. District Court Judge Michael Moore, a Bush appointee, had
refused to rule on the law's validity, since the state had said it wouldn't
enforce the law (the case was filed in 1992, and it took 4 years just to get
that ruling from Judge Moore).

But the 11th circuit ruled that Judge Moore must make a decision, since there
is no guarantee that the state might not enforce the law in the future.
Plaintiffs in the case are the Socialist Workers and Green Parties. The 11th
circuit opinion was written by Judge Stanley Marcus, a Clinton appointee, and
signed by Judges Lanier Anderson, a Carter appointee, and Edward Carnes, a Bush
appointee.

1. California: The briefs have been filed in the 9th circuit in
California Democratic Party v Jones, 97-17440, the case over the
blanket primary. A hearing will be held early in 1999.

2. Colorado: On June 25, U.S. District Court Judge John Kane, a Carter
appointee, upheld Colorado law, which reserves the top lines on the ballot for
candidates of major political parties. Libertarian Party of Colorado v
Buckley, 96-K-1983. The decision was no surprise, since the Judge had
earlier refused to issue an injunction against the law.

Colorado (2): On July 3, a state court judge upheld the
constitutionality of the state's petition procedures for major party candidates
to qualify for the primary ballot. Johnson v Buckley, 98-cv-4992,
Denver.

3. Florida: on July 13, the 11th circuit held a hearing in Green
v Mortham, 98-2042, over Florida's very large candidate filing fees, 6%
of the annual salary of the office being sought (this amounts to over $8,000 for
Congress). Judges assigned to the case are Gerald Tjoflat (a Ford appointee who
has upheld the filing fee law in the past), Emmett Cox (a Reagan appointee) and
Frank Hull (a Clinton appointee). The judges are very aware that, in this year's
election, there is only one candidate on the ballot for U.S. House in 17 of
Florida's 23 districts. For this reason alone, the plaintiffs are cautiously
optimistic, even though precedents are against them.

4. Indiana: the Democratic Party has filed a lawsuit to remove one of
its own nominees for Congress from the general election ballot, and to replace
him with the party leadership choice. Andrew v Kern, 49co
1-98-06mi-1372, Marion Co. Circuit Court.

5. Iowa: on July 30, the 8th circuit dismissed a pending lawsuit on
debates with a single paragraph. Marcus v Iowa Public TV, 96-3645.
The case had been filed in 1996, long before the U.S. Supreme recent decision on
whether public TV can sponsor a candidate debate and exclude some
ballot-qualified candidates.

The candidate plans to ask for U.S. Supreme Court review, since he argues
that his campaign was more substantial than the campaign of the candidate
involved in the U.S. Supreme Court decision, Ralph Forbes. The 8th circuit gave
him no opportunity to make this argument.

6. Kentucky: on April 30, the 6th circuit struck down a campaign
finance law which made it illegal for a candidate to contribute to his own
campaign during the 28 days before a primary or general election. Gable v
Patton, 142 F 3d 940.

7. Louisiana: on July 16, the 5th circuit ruled that the state should
hold its initial congressional election this year on November 3, 1998. If no one
gets a majority of the vote in any congressional race, there will be a run-off
on December 5. Love v Foster, 98-30436. Proponents of closed
primaries are disappointed, since they had argued that since the U.S. Supreme
Court last year had held that the existing scheme violates federal law, and
since the legislature hadn't fixed the problem, the state should revert to the
old law in effect before 1976. That pre-1976 law provided for closed primaries.

8. New York: on July 27, Lenora Fulani filed a lawsuit against the 5%
petition for a candidate to get on the primary ballot of a small, qualified
party. Fulani v Berman, 98-cv-5340, U.S. District Court, Manhattan.
She tried and failed to get on the Independence Party primary ballot for
Lieutenant Governor. She needed over 6,000 signatures of registered members of
the Independence Party, which had to be gathered in six weeks. A similar
lawsuit, concerning access to the Republican Party presidential primary ballot,
won in 1996 in the 2nd circuit.

9. Ohio: on July 1, independent candidate Mark Miller asked the U.S.
Supreme Court to hear Miller v Lorain County Board of Elections,
98-5055, over Ohio's petition-checking procedures, and over the fact that Ohio
requires approximately 40 times more signatures for independent candidates than
for candidates seeking a spot on the primary ballot.

Ohio (2): the Libertarian Party is about to file a lawsuit in federal
court over the state's refusal to let candidates who use the independent
candidate petition procedure, choose a party label other than "independent".

10. Rhode Island: the state is appealing the decision in Cool
Moose Party v Board of Elections, ca96-514, in which the U.S. District
Court had ruled that a qualified party has the right to invite all registered
voters to vote in its primary.

1. California (1): SB 1505, which restores a closed primary for
presidential primaries, was signed into law on July 13. It won't go into effect
unless the voters approve it on November 3, 1998.

California (2): SB 1999, which moves the primary in presidential years
permanently from early June to early March, passed the Assembly Elections
Committee on June 23 by a vote of 7-0 and is now in the Appropriations
Committee.

2. New Hampshire: HB 1520 was signed into law on June 26. It
eliminates fusion for State House of Representatives, but only in districts
which elect more than one member.

3. Pennsylvania: HB 1918, which eases ballot access, had a legislative
workshop on July 15. It seems likely that the bill will pass the House State
Governmental Committee eventually, but it take some months, since the Committee
still isn't satisfied with the current version of the bill.

On July 28, President Bill Clinton, appearing in New Mexico, said in a
speech: "I would ask that people in New Mexico who have voted in the past, for
whatever reason, for the Green Party, but who honestly care about the
environment, to take another look at the consequences of their votes." The Green
Party polled 15% in one special congressional election in New Mexico recently,
and 17% in an earlier special congressional election in the state.

This year, there are several instances in the south at which official
confusion about election laws has injured candidates:

1. Alabama: in 1991 the 11th circuit struck down the old deadline law
for minor parties, which said that their petitions were due in April, on the
same day that major party candidates file for the primary. Also struck down was
the law which said that minor parties had to hold nominating conventions no
later than that day.

The legislature in 1995 moved the petition deadline to early July, but didn't
explicitly specify the deadline for minor party conventions. This year the
Secretary of State issued a letter, saying the convention deadline is in early
August. The Libertarian and Reform Parties relied on this letter. But on July 29
the Attorney General ruled that the Secretary of State was wrong; that the
deadline for conventions was in early July; and that the Libertarian and Reform
candidates may not appear on the ballot. The parties will probably sue. In 1976,
a federal court in Louisiana ruled that when states supply misinformation about
filing deadlines, the state must keep its word.

2. Florida: the Socialist Workers Party desired to run a write-in
candidate for Governor. Write-in candidates for state office must file a
declaration of write-in candidacy by July. Before the July deadline, the
Secretary of State's office orally told the Socialist Workers campaign that no
write-in candidate for Lieutenant Governor was required. Therefore, the party
only filed papers for a gubernatorial candidate. After the deadline was passed,
the Secretary of State said that the papers were invalid since they didn't
include a Lieutenant Governor candidate.

3. South Carolina: the Reform Party tried to cross-endorse several
Democratic and Republican nominees, including U.S. Senator Ernest Hollings, a
Democrat running for reelection. The general rule in all states is that fusion
is permitted, unless it is banned; and South Carolina has no ban on fusion.

However, the State Board of Elections refused to recognize the Reform Party's
nominees who were also nominees of major parties, on the grounds that the
nominees didn't file an early declaration of candidacy. This is odd, since
generally the state only requires early declarations of candidacy for candidates
running in primaries, and the Reform Party nominates by convention. The Attorney
General may issue an opinion.

The Associated Press carried a story on June 4, explaining why the recent
California blanket primary injures minor parties. The article, by Doug
Willis, is reprinted here with permission: Please don't
re-publish this article unless you also get permission from The Associated
Press.

Sacramento, June 4. The worst fears of California's minor parties
came true in this week's primary elections. They received more votes than they
wanted.

The Libertarian and Peace & Freedom Parties joined the Democratic and
Republican Parties in a lawsuit to block California's new open primary. All
four parties contended that the open primary would allow voters of other
parties to pick their nominees. The minor parties contended that was
especially true in their case, since they are so small that outsiders could
easily overrun their numbers.

Gail Lightfoot, former head of the California Libertarian Party, said the
returns from the state's only contested Libertarian primary for Congress this
week, in the 1st district on the North coast, clearly demonstrated that their
fears were well founded.

That district had just 1,831 Libertarian Party voters. But Emil Rossi of
Boonville defeated James Oglesby of Ukiah for the Libertarian nomination by
2,137 to 1,623 votes on still-incomplete returns.

Since the turnout was below 40% in the district, that means about 80% to
85% of their vote came from voters who were not Libertarians. "They're both
good Libertarians, so we don't have any wolves in sheep's clothing using our
party to get onto the November ballot," Lightfoot said in a telephone
interview.

"But our people didn't get to choose our nominee. This illustrates how easy
it would be for someone who is well-known locally, but is not a Libertarian,
to win our nomination."

She said they want to win as many votes as possible in general elections,
but not in primaries. "Primaries are different. Primaries should be for our
party members, and they are not any more," said Lightfoot, who won the
uncontested Libertarian nomination for Secretary of State with a vote total
that was more than double the Libertarian registration statewide.

"If a known Republican or Democrat had run against me, they probably would
have won easily," Lightfoot said. "To snag the Libertarian or Peace &
Freedom or Green nomination, you don't need a lot of votes, and you continue
to be a candidate from June through November."

"It all depends on what you want to do most -- win or stick to your
principles. Sticking to principles has to come first, because if people who
don't believe in Libertarian principles win our nomination, we lose no matter
how the general election turns out," she said.

The other minor parties had similar results, mostly in uncontested local
elections. A Natural Law candidate for Congress, for example, received 3,957
votes in a San Jose district where that party has only 495 registered voters.
A Green Party candidate received 2,394 votes in a Riverside district where the
Green Party only has 758 registered voters.

The Center for Voting and Democracy is sponsoring a national conference on
proportional representation in San Francisco on September 12-13. Topics include
"PR and Campaign Finance Reform", "Representation of Women", "PR Around the
World", "How do you count Those Transferable Ballots, Anyway?", "Hitler,
Coalitions and Complexity", "Foundations and Political Reform", and many others.
For more information, contact Steve Hill, (415)-665-5044; e-mail address is
voteaction@hotmail.com or see http://www.fairvote.org/.

Although the Communist Party hasn't announced any candidates for 1998, it
plans to petition to qualify itself for the city ballot in Tucson, Arizona in
1999 (Tucson has partisan city elections). In 1996 the party had only one
candidate in the nation under its own name, in New York.

Steve Abrams, chairman of the Kansas Republican Party, signed the petition to
get the U.S. Taxpayers Party on the ballot in June. Abrams said he signed to
encourage the democratic process, but he was attacked by a Republican
legislative leader, Speaker Pro Tem Susan Wagle, for "betraying the Republican
Party".

HR 3068, the bill to let states choose members of the House using
proportional representation, recently gained two more co-sponsors, both from
California: Barbara Lee and Maxine Waters, both Democrats.

The 1998 statewide petitioning chart which sometimes appears here is omitted
this month, for space reasons. Significant changes for
nationally-organized parties since the July 3 B.A.N.
are:

Reform: finished petitioning in Colorado, parts of New Jersey (there
is no statewide race in New Jersey this year), and Pennsylvania, although the
Pennsylvania petition may not have enough signatures.

Libertarian: is on in New Hampshire, and finished petitioning in
Illinois, Massachusetts, Minnesota, part of New Jersey, and Pennsylvania.
Connecticut is almost finished and New York is off to a slow start.

Natural Law: finished petitioning in part of New Jersey and Illinois.

US Taxpayers: finished in Colorado, Illinois, part of New Jersey.

Green: finished in part of New Jersey and Rhode Island. The New York
faction called "Green" has 20,000 signatures and the one called "Green Choice"
has 5,000.

Socialist Workers: has 15,000 in New York and is finished in Iowa,
Minnesota, and the District of Columbia.

It appears that there will be statewide independent or minor party ballots on
the ballot this year in all states except Alabama, Maryland and Florida, and
perhaps Washington (also, there are four states which have no statewide offices
up). The exact Maryland signatures requirement is now known: 75,752 (the reform
bill doesn't take effect until next year).

The Freedom Socialist Party, which last ran candidates for public office in
1991, this year has candidates for state legislature in Washington (under its
own name), Oregon ("independent"), and California (via nomination by the Peace
& Freedom Party). The Freedom Socialist Party was formed in 1970 from a
split within the Socialist Workers Party.

The California blanket primary on June 2 provided a rare opportunity to know
who votes for minor party candidates, since two counties programmed their
vote-counting computers to make separate tabulations for registered Democrats,
Republicans, and independents.

San Bernardino County has released its tally; Santa Clara County is still
working on one. Results from San Bernardino County show that registered
Democrats are more likely than registered Republicans to vote for Green, Reform,
Natural Law, and Peace & Freedom candidates. On the other hand, registered
Republicans are more likely than registered Democrats to vote for Libertarian
and U.S. Taxpayers Party candidates (in California, the U.S. Taxpayers Party is
called "American Independent").

Specific numbers from San Bernardino County for the statewide minor
party candidates are:

1. Greens received, on the average, votes from 1.15% of the registered
Democrats, .86% of the registered Republicans, and 2.72% of the registered
independents.

2. Libertarians received votes, on the average, from 1.40% of the
registered Republicans, 1.22% of the registered Democrats, and 3.47% of the
registered independents.

3. Reform candidates received votes, on the average, from 1.07% of the
Democrats, .77% of the Republicans, and 2.36% of the independents.

4. Peace & Freedom candidates received votes, on the average, from
1.96% of the Democrats, .96% of the Republicans, and 3.55% of the independents.

5. U.S. Taxpayers candidates received votes, on the average, from
1.17% of the Republicans, 1.04% of the Democrats, and 2.74% of the independents.

6. Natural Law candidates received votes, on the average, from 1.46%
of the Democrats, .80% of the Republicans, and 2.51% of the independents.

Unfortunately, San Bernardino County did not make a tabulation of whom the
members of minor parties vote for.

Although the Reform Party did not get on the Florida statewide ballot this
year, it did get enough valid signatures to qualify in the 5th congressional
district. The candidate, Jack Gargan, will be the only opponent for Karen
Thurman, the incumbent Democrat. Gargan is the first minor party candidate for
U.S. House to qualify in Florida under the state's 3% petition requirement,
since the law was changed in 1991 to permit parties to qualify in just a single
district (there was a Green Party candidate for the U.S. House in 1992 in
Florida, but in 1992 the 3% petition law for that office was temporarily
suspended).

Three Natural Law Party activists ran in the Iowa Republican primary of June
2. Jay Marcus, for Congress in the 3rd district, polled second in a three-person
race, with 18.32%. John Revolinski, for State Senate, 47th district, polled
second in a three-person race with 29.32%. Clyde Cleveland, in a two-person race
for Representative, 94th district, polled 34.69%.

U.S. Term Limits activists are petitioning to get the "Term Limits Party" on
the ballot in New York and Connecticut. If the party polls approximately 1% of
the vote in each state, it will become qualified. Both states permit fusion.
Thus, in the future, if the Term Limits Party becomes fully qualified in either
state, it will be able to nominate major party candidates on its line as well,
if such major party candidates agree with term limits.

This year, if all the minor parties currently petitioning in New York succeed
in getting on the ballot, that state will have a crowded ballot. There are
already seven fully-qualified parties. In addition, eight statewide petitions
are circulating: Green, Green Choice, Libertarian, Marijuana Reform, Socialist
Workers, Term Limits, Unity, and Working Families Parties. All passionately
desire to poll 50,000 votes for Governor so as to attain "party" status.